• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

"Star Wars", and a couple thoughts on structure

Nothing major to discuss here. But I noticed something, last night, that I think is a rather significant example of how we can really get overly academic with screenwriting, sometimes.

A lot of us, myself included, like to follow a particular methodology with screenwriting. It being the only method I've significantly read about (and I like it), I follow the "Save the Cat" method. However, it's been relayed to me that Blake Snyder didn't really invent a new method, he just did an awesome job teaching it in everyday language, and that his method is actually really close to a great deal of other screenwriting methods.

If you're not familiar with his work, or any of those similar to his, I can sum it up quickly by saying that he provides a clearly-defined structure that screenplays should follow. Major events are clearly defined, and there is a fairly exact order in which these events should take place.

A quick example -- towards the end of the first act, there should be the "Catalyst", the event that propels our hero into the second act. After that, we need the "Debate", in which the hero questions/ponders whether they should or shouldn't do whatever is needed to actually move into the second act.

In "Star Wars", you could very easily say that the "Catalyst" is
the murder of Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru.
And the "Debate" is
Luke's whiny protesting to Obi Wan's insistence that Luke follow him to Alderan, and learn the ways of the force.

Okay, great, so Lucas was following the "Save the Cat" methodology, and he never even knew it. But wait! In "Star Wars", the Debate comes before the Catalyst. Once our catalyst happens, the decision to move forward into the second act is pretty straight-forward. Luke doesn't really have a decision to make, actually -- at that point, what else is he going to do?

So, here we have a pretty clear example of a very successful movie, loved the world over, cherished by pretty much all of us, and it's breaking the rules of screenwriting!

But the backwards order of the Debate and Catalyst isn't what got me thinking, last night, but the very late introduction of Luke. The pre-Luke part of the story, which pretty much belongs to R2D2 and C3PO, is rather long. There's an age-old rule that says that all major players should be introduced within the first ten pages or so, right? But Luke's introduction is seriously stretching that 10-minute limit, and he's the freaking protagonist! Han's introduction comes significantly later.

Furthermore, the second and third acts are kind of strange, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to force-fit them into Snyder's, or anyone else's, super-defined methodology. The reason I say this is because this is Luke's story, is it not? But his goals aren't all that clearly defined from the beginning, at least in relation to
the destruction of the Death Star.
From Luke's perspective (and the audience's, really), he only sets out to
save a captured princess.
And he does; great, so the movie should be over. But wait! There's more! What comes next is barely even referenced, earlier in the movie, and our protagonist never had any inkling that this was where he'd be heading, eventually.

Anyway, my ramblings are only to illustrate that though I'm a fan of having some kind of structure, it's important to remember that an over-reliance on pre-prescribed structure can be a serious detriment. I mean, here we have the most influential movie of our generation, and it's breaking rules all over the place!

Your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I've always felt that we focus too much on rigid guidelines when half the movies we love are the one's that veered off the side of the rode, were supposed to careen outta control because they didn't follow the rules, but they wound up growing wings and flying. This is true of almost anything human created. We are a relatively new species and as such all things we determine as "the way" are not set in stone. Science is a great example of this. Gravity is only gravity until we discover something else that holds us down on earth.

Stories are no different. Non-linear stories wouldn't exist if someone didn't think of writing a story backwards. Breaking rules is fun
 
Star Wars fits within a monomyth or Hero's Journey template, not a three act structure.
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/agordon/starwars.htm

When Obi Wan requests he come with him to Alderan Luke does his whiny "Ah, I can't go" bit.
Get home. BAM! Storm troopers done shot the sh!t outta everyone.
NOW Luke has no reason to stay + personal (instead of "in principle") motivation to go kick Imperial a$$.
http://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/dynamics/2010/12/19/kirby-lucas-and-campbell-part-2/

Call to adventure.
Refusal of call.
Acceptance of call.
 
I never really understood story structure. Sometimes people say a film has 3 acts, and then someone else analyzes the movie and says it has 9 acts. Maybe it's like the number 23?
 
I'm not going to use spoiler tags. If anyone here does not know the
specifics of a 34 year old movie then don't read this.

However, it's been relayed to me that Zach Snyder didn't really invent a new method, he just did an awesome job teaching it in everyday language, and that his method is actually really close to a great deal of other screenwriting methods.
Really? Until this was relayed to you you thought Snyder developed
this methd of story telling? Or am I missing the intended sarcasm?

If you're not familiar with his work, or any of those similar to his, I can sum it up quickly by saying that he provides a clearly-defined structure that screenplays should follow. Major events are clearly defined, and there is a fairly exact order in which these events should take place.

I’ve never read Snyder, but I have read Campbell who taught the
history of storytelling decades ago. There are many “rules” and those
“rules” are fluid. If Snyder taught that the “debate” can only happen
after the “catalyst” then he was a fool. As “Star Wars” shows. In many
stories the protagonist has the question before the catalyst.

Furthermore, the second and third acts are kind of strange, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to force-fit them into Snyder's, or anyone else's, super-defined methodology. The reason I say this is because this is Luke's story, is it not? But his goals aren't all that clearly defined from the beginning, at least in relation to
the destruction of the Death Star.
From Luke's perspective (and the audience's, really), he only sets out to
save a captured princess.
And he does; great, so the movie should be over. But wait! There's more! What comes next is barely even referenced, earlier in the movie, and our protagonist never had any inkling that this was where he'd be heading, eventually.
This I don’t understand at all - perhaps it’s specific to Snyder.
A second act twist that pushes the protagonist in a new direction
is standard storytelling. The goal of the protagonist often changes.
I believe that when it does it make a more interesting story.
Luke’s goal is to get away from home and his dream is to fight
with the Rebellion. When he is freed from his home obligations
he achieves his goal. He never dreamed of destroying the Death
Star - he didn’t even know it existed - but he wanted to fight the
Empire. The existence of the Death Star opened a new goal that
is an extension of his original goal. I don’t see how that makes
a strange second and third act. It seem to be exactly what the
first act sets up.

Look at Dorothy. She wanted something better. Her goal wasn’t
to kill the Wicked Witch but that’s what she did. The obligation
to kill the Witch came because she needed to do that to reach
her secondary goal - to get back home.
 
I'm not going to use spoiler tags. If anyone here does not know the
specifics of a 34 year old movie then don't read this.

Good point. :lol: No more spoilers.

Really? Until this was relayed to you you thought Snyder developed
this methd of story telling? Or am I missing the intended sarcasm?

There are loyalists who swear by his "beat sheet", and that is what I was referring to. If you ask me, that's a rather specific structure, and no I wasn't being sarcastic -- I thought he invented the core of the "beat sheet" (whereas it turns out it's rather similar to some other specific structures).

I’ve never read Snyder, but I have read Campbell who taught the
history of storytelling decades ago. There are many “rules” and those
“rules” are fluid. If Snyder taught that the “debate” can only happen
after the “catalyst” then he was a fool. As “Star Wars” shows. In many
stories the protagonist has the question before the catalyst.

Yep, that's what Snyder teaches. He does, in fact, profess that the beat sheet should be followed, and it is not fluid. Perhaps Campbell should be my next reading!

This I don’t understand at all - perhaps it’s specific to Snyder.
A second act twist that pushes the protagonist in a new direction
is standard storytelling. The goal of the protagonist often changes.
I believe that when it does it make a more interesting story.
Luke’s goal is to get away from home and his dream is to fight
with the Rebellion. When he is freed from his home obligations
he achieves his goal. He never dreamed of destroying the Death
Star - he didn’t even know it existed - but he wanted to fight the
Empire. The existence of the Death Star opened a new goal that
is an extension of his original goal. I don’t see how that makes
a strange second and third act. It seem to be exactly what the
first act sets up.

Hmm, good points. I was thinking of his goal as being specific to rescuing Lea, but you're right, his goal of fighting the Empire, in general, was clearly defined for him, very early.

Look at Dorothy. She wanted something better. Her goal wasn’t
to kill the Wicked Witch but that’s what she did. The obligation
to kill the Witch came because she needed to do that to reach
her secondary goal - to get back home.

Hmm, good points. I was thinking of his goal as being specific to rescuing Lea, but you're right, his goal of fighting the Empire, in general, was clearly defined for him, very early.

@TheNoob -- the 3 act structure is rather entrenched. Pretty much everything you see in the theater is 3 acts, and the only way to get away from that is to redefine what constitutes an "act".

@rayw -- That's an interesting article. I do think "Star Wars" fits the 3 act mold, however (and some of directorik's points are evidence of that, I think).

@ CHamburger -- I'm with ya. At least partially. I like rules. I also like breaking them! One small correction, though -- I'm sorry I'm such a nerd, but I can't help it -- gravity is gravity. There's no breaking that rule. :)
 
Last edited:
Yep, that's what Snyder teaches. He does, in fact, profess that the beat sheet should be followed, and it is not fluid. Perhaps Campbell should be my next reading!
Anyone who says that is a fool. There are “rules” and there are
guidelines to good storytelling. As Campbell points out,
storytelling is a deep, human structure that covers all
civilizations, all countries and all time. It’s fascinating. He doesn't
lay down "rules" he explains how we humans understand and
relate to stories.

And it’s fluid. I can’t imagine Snyder being able to support a
ridged “beat sheet” when he says the “debate” always comes after
the “catalyst”. I think in most stories it’s the other way around.
The protagonist has the “debate” - has a need or desire or dream
first, then something happens that opens up the possibilities or
actually pushes the protag into action. Of course sometimes it's the
other way around. The protag is faced with a challenge and must
decide to act on it. Both are good story telling. To suggest one is
the ridged (perhaps "best" or "only") way is foolish.

I just took a look at the "Star Wars" script. Luke is introduced on
page 8. That scene was shot and then cut from the finished film.
All fanatics know the Biggs/Luke scene.

This shows two things: Lucas at one time understood storytelling.
And changes are made from the script to the screen.
 
Well, I guess now I'm finally a fanatic! :D

These were totally new to me.
Again I gotta ask; REALLY? You never knew of these scenes until I
mentioned them? Where have you been? Under a rock in Virginia?

Do NOT tell me you have never seen the original introduction to
Han Solo. Do NOT tell me that.
 
I don't have anything much to contribute to this thread other than the fact that 'Save the Cat' is written by Blake Snyder.

Zach Snyder is the director/antichrist of Sucker Punch and I am petitioning to have his name redacted from every source on the internet.
 
I don't have anything much to contribute to this thread other than the fact that 'Save the Cat' is written by Blake Snyder.

Zach Snyder is the director/antichrist of Sucker Punch and I am petitioning to have his name redacted from every source on the internet.

:lol:

Thanks for correcting my brain-fart. I have to be honest, though the only Zach Snyder movie I've ever liked is "Watchmen", I'm rather intrigued to find out what direction he'll take the next installment of "Superman" in.

Do NOT tell me you have never seen the original introduction to
Han Solo. Do NOT tell me that.

Okay, I won't tell you that. :blush:

*Frantically begins searching for Han's original introduction!
 
@TheNoob -- the 3 act structure is rather entrenched. Pretty much everything you see in the theater is 3 acts, and the only way to get away from that is to redefine what constitutes an "act".

Everything has a beginning, a middle, and an end, so I guess it's matter of semantics. Well, aside from a general consensus of beginning, middle, and end, and some general story markers that apply in most story structures. In other words arguing whether a movie had 3 acts, 5 acts, or 9 acts is pointless because everyone will interpret the story structure differently.
 
In other words arguing whether a movie had 3 acts, 5 acts, or 9 acts is pointless because everyone will interpret the story structure differently.
I'll agree that conversational post mortem analysis is wildly subjective.

However, from the perspective of looking at the cinematic corpses of others to determine what does and doesn't work for creating your own Franken-film there's definite merit to a more than cursory examination.

With respect, I submit there's a sh!tload more to story telling than "begining middle end".

- I got up from my seat on the front porch.
- I walked to the mailbox.
- Then I returned to my seat with mail. It wasn't for me.


Hardly captivating.

- Rick crashed out of the second floor window.
- He staggered to his truck.
- Then he strode back into the house with a Colt Python. It wasn't his.


Oh... ! Well...! Now I've gone and cheated, didn't I? :D

Story construct analysis is a good thing.
Watch for repeating patterns that your target audience seems to enjoy.

Too many soon to be unsuccessful writers/directors create for themselves then wonder why no one likes it.
Pfft. Dummies.
Not enough people analyse the market and create a product the people would find benefit from.
Every little thing you see at the store to buy is a result of many decisions by many people:
- Inventor
- Supplier, possibly
- Financier
- Insurance
- Distributor
- Retailer
- Customer, ultimately

A film project is a product just like gum, potato chips, TVs, car, house, insurance, or education.

Understand the product and tailor to the customer you can reach.

3 Act
Syd Field
Blake Snyder
Hero's Journey/Monomyth
Whichever.
 
With respect, I submit there's a sh!tload more to story telling than "begining middle end".

3 Act
Syd Field
Blake Snyder
Hero's Journey/Monomyth
Whichever.

When I said movies have a beginning, a middle and an end; I wasn't referring to the 3 act story structure. like you said there are better and more effective ways to telling stories. What I meant was every film has a beginning, a middle, and an end, or the story would be incomplete. Other than these certain and undeniable phases, story structures are purely subjective. Meaning a person who utilizes 5 act story structure sees 5 acts in movies, when a person who uses 9 acts sees the same movie he sees 9 acts not 5.
 
Everything has a beginning, a middle, and an end, so I guess it's matter of semantics. Well, aside from a general consensus of beginning, middle, and end, and some general story markers that apply in most story structures. In other words arguing whether a movie had 3 acts, 5 acts, or 9 acts is pointless because everyone will interpret the story structure differently.
Some people break each act into separate acts. So Act One
(the beginning) has two "acts", Act Three (the middle) has
three "acts" and Act Three (the end) has two acts. Typically
these people break acts at what others call the "turning point".

Sometime I get the impression these people do it to sound
smarter than the rest of us and sometimes I think they do it
to sound more educated. And often these people are just telling
other what they read and like.

Structure is so simple that some people just have to complicate
it. Mostly these are blow-hards and teachers. Even though that
sounds closed-minded on my part and certainly prejudges, I give
full credit and respect to anyone who wants to break the simple
three-act structure into five or nine. If it makes them feel better,
I'm cool with that.
 
I've only read the OP so far, but here's a couple thoughts on the whole "Is Luke the protagonist or what?" idea.

According to Lucas, the story was originally written from the perspective(does not necessarily imply protagonist, but important still) of R2D2 and C-3P0. But he thought that an audience would not identify with two robots, so he changed up the story a bit so that the focus was more on Luke/Han/Leia (also he switched Han from being a wookie to being human with a wookie side-kick). This could explain why Luke doesn't show up until later.

Or one could argue, especially when taking the prequels into account, that Vader is actually the protagonist of the whole star wars series. And we do see him almost immediately.
 
Back
Top